CBI challenges acquittal in cash-at-judge’s-house case

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the March 29 judgment of the Special CBI Court, Chandigarh, acquitting Justice Nirmal Yadav and other accused in the 2008 “cash-at-judge’s-house” case.

Taking up the appeal, a Division Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul and Justice H S Grewal issued notice of motion for December 15 and directed that the lower court record be requisitioned for the date fixed.

In its appeal filed through Special Public Prosecutor Akashdeep Singh, the CBI alleged that “the trial Court basically erred both in law and in fact in completely discarding the prosecution case, despite the existence of credible material including direct evidence of the recovery of Rsv15.00 lakhs in cash, chain of events suggesting delivery, and multiple confessional statements recorded during the investigation.”

The agency submitted that the trial court’s judgment was “perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases involving circumstantial evidence.”

It argued that the recovery of Rs 15 lakh from the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur on August 13, 2008, which was mistakenly delivered there by Parkash Ram, “clearly establishes the existence of illicit funds originally intended for Accused No.5 (A-5).”

The appeal added that an FIR was initially registered by Chandigarh Police on the basis of a complaint lodged by the peon of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur regarding money being delivered at the judge’s residence. The matter was later transferred to the CBI.

According to the petition, the investigation revealed that Ravinder Singh had sent Rs 15 lakh through his friend Sanjiv Bansal to be delivered to Justice Nirmal Yadav (Retd.). However, the amount was wrongly delivered to the house of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur. The next day, Rajiv Gupta allegedly delivered the amount to Justice Nirmal Yadav, who on that very day purchased land in Solan.

The CBI further asserted that the money was linked to judicial favour allegedly shown by Justice Nirmal Yadav in a case.

The petition also refers to phone call records of the accused, confessional statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, and other circumstantial evidence.

The appeal adds that during the trial one of the accused, Sanjiv Bansal, died and proceedings against him abated. In all, 78 witnesses were examined, some of whom turned hostile, before the trial court acquitted the remaining accused.

The CBI has arrayed as respondents Ravinder Singh, Rajeev Gupta, Nirmal Singh, and former judge Nirmal Yadav.